THE MILNE UNIVERSE AND THE

MELIA COSMIC HORIZON.

By
Richard Blaber.
We revisit the Milne cosmological model and examine Melias
argument for a cosmic horizon in relation to that model, before
dismissing both in favour of the standard CDM view.
Imagine a universe which is conformally flat and a Ricci-flat manifold on a
large scale, i.e., where C = 0 and R(vacuum solution of the Einstein
field equations of the General Theory of Relativity, GTR), k4 = 0 in 4-space and
k3= 1 in 3-space [1]. The 4-space curvature parameter and Ricci curvature
tensor can be equal iff = 0[2],and the GTR does not apply on the large
scale, but only on the local scale[3]. = 0 implies, in turn, that the mass density
= 0, which, given that there is mass in this universe, implies that it is a finite
mass confined to a finite portion of an infinite volume of 3-space at any given
time period, t = age of the universe, tu. The nature of the confinement has
changed; at the earliest epoch, tu = 0, the mass was concentrated in a volume of
[1]

Here k3 is the 3-space curvature parameter, which is dimensionless and three-valued: 1,

when the total mass density parameter, < 1, and space-time is hyperbolic; 0, when = 1,
and space-time is flat or Euclidean; and +1, when > 1, and space-time is closed or
Riemannian. (Observation indicates that, in our universe, at the present epoch [signified by
subscript 0], 0 = 1, k3 = 0.) For more discussion of k4, see below. C is the Weyl
conformal tensor (see: Penrose, R [2010], Cycles of Time. An Extraordinary New View of the
Universe, London: Vintage Books, pp.130-5, 224 (he refers to C as C); Weyl, H [1918],
Reine Infinitesimalgeometrie [Pure Infinitesimal Geometry], Mathematische Zeitschrift
2(3-4):384-411, 1st September 1918, DOI: 10.1007/BF01199420); R is the Ricci curvature
tensor, see: Ricci-Curbastro, MMG & Levi-Civita, T (1900), Mthodes de Calcul
Diffrentielle Absolu et leurs Applications [Methods of Absolute Differential Calculus and
their Applications], Mathematische Annalen 54(1-2):125-201, 1st March 1900, DOI:
10.1007/BF01454201.
[2]
I.e., the cosmological constant, which appears in the full tensor form of the Einstein
equation: RRg = T g, where = 8G/c4, g = the metric tensor (see RicciCurbastro & Levi-Civita, op.cit.), R the Ricci scalar (scalar curvature), and T the stressenergy-momentum tensor; see: Schoen, R (1984), Conformal Deformation of a Riemannian
Metric to Constant Scalar Curvature, Journal of Differential Geometry 20:479-95,
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~js/Math646/schoen.yamabe.pdf; Kaya, A & Tarman, M (2011),
Stress-Energy Tensor of Adiabatic Vacuum in Friedmann-Robertson-Walker Spacetimes,
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2011 Volume, April Issue, DOI:
10.1088/1475-7516/2011/04/040, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1104.5562.pdf. When T = = 0, R =
R= 0. If 0, R = 0, R = g.
[3]
The Special Theory of Relativity (STR) would apply at all length scales.
1

space V = 0, a space-time singularity[4], so that then = [5]. As soon as the

mass was released from this prison, however, it was liberated into an infinite
Euclidean 3-space, with V = , so its density at infinity promptly dropped to
= 0. Its local density at different times since t = 0 has been non-zero positive
and finite; in other words, 0 < L . (However, L 0 as t .) Given that
it is open, at any given moment t < , the 3-space of this cosmos has negative
curvature, and so k3 = 1, as we have seen.
The universe we have just described was first adumbrated by EA Milne in
[6]
1933 . In imaginary Cartesian coordinates, this has the metric[7]:
( )

)
(Eq.1a)

which is derivable from the Minkowski[8] metric in imaginary Cartesian

coordinates, but Milne space only occupies a quarter of Minkowski space[9]:
[4]

This was not a curvature singularity, but a Newtonian gravitational singularity, produced by
2 = 4G (Poissons equation for gravity), where is the gravitational potential in J kg-1
and = GM/r, where r is distance. When = , r = 0, = .
[5]
We assume that space-time is continuous and infinitely divisible, not discrete. Thus spacetime is not quantised in this universe, and, generally, it is classical rather than quantum
mechanical (e.g., there is no Casimir or vacuum energy, see Kaya & Tarman, op.cit.).
[6]
See: Milne, EA (1933), World-Structure and the Expansion of the Universe, Zeitschrift
fr Astrophysik 6:1-95, BibCode: 1933ZA......6....1M, http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgibin/nphiarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1933ZA......6....1M&letter=0&classic=YES&defaultp
rint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=1&epage=1&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf..
Another feature to note of this universe is that the ratio of the pressure, p (in Pa) to the energy
density in J m-3, w = p/c2 = 0/0 = 0.
[7]
See: Charmousis, C, Introduction to Anti de Sitter Black Holes, in Papantonopoulos, E,
ed. (2011), From Gravity to Thermal Gauge Theories: The AdS/CFT Correspondence, Part I,
Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp.3-26,
http://www.physics.ntua.gr/cosmo09/Milos2009/Milos%20Talks%202009/1st%20day/Charm
ousis%20Paper.pdf, p.3; here and in Eq.1b, represents proper time (in units of imaginary
length; not to be confused with the Hubble time, = H-1); and H is the Hubble parameter.
AdS/CFT correspondence, also referred to in the literature as Maldacena duality or
gauge/gravity duality is an abbreviation of Anti-de Sitter space/Conformal Field Theories,
and refers to the fact that the conformal boundary of anti-de Sitter 3-space ( < 0) can be
treated as the space-time of a conformal field theory (quantum field theory). See: Maldacena,
J (1998), The Large N Limit of Superconformal Field Theories and Supergravity, Advances
in Theoretical and Mathematical Physics 2:231-52, http://arxiv.org/pdf/hepth/9711200v3.pdf.
[8]
Minkowski, H (1909), Raum und Zeit [Space and Time], Jahresbericht der Deutschen
Mathematiker-Vereinigung
18:75-88,
English
trans.
at:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Space_and_Time, pp.5-9.
Strictly speaking,
expressing Minkowski space in terms of imaginary or complex dimensions gives it a metric
2

( )

)
(Eq.1b)[10]

Instead of considering the local universe, UL (defined below), as a finite portion

of an infinite volume of Euclidean 4-space containing a finite quantity of massenergy, so that k4 = 0, but insufficient for closure of the local 3-space, so that k3
= 1, and that local 3-space is consequently hyperbolic (or BolyaiLobachevskian), let us instead begin by accepting Milnes basic premise that
cosmic observers, wherever they may be located, are equivalent (he calls this
The Principle of Extended Relativity[11]) and adopt an observer-centric[12]
view of the universe, which, in the case of an Earth-based observer, would be a
geocentric one. One might, with a high degree of accuracy, describe this as
subjective Ptolemaic (or neo-Ptolemaic) cosmology.
Next, however, in place of the hyperbolic 3-space, let us substitute a flat
(k3 = 0; = 1; = 0) local 3-space, with pressure p = 0 (and thus w = 0). Such
a space would constitute a finite hyperplane of a static infinite 4-space coextensive with 4[13], and thus, if our local volume of 3-space is the only part of
this 4-space to contain any mass-energy, = 0 and k4 = 0. The metric of the 4space is the Minkowski metric (Eq.1b, see n.8); the metric of the 3-space is for a

signature of +, +, +, + (as opposed to , +, +, + or +, , , ), which converts it into a complex

Euclidean 4-space, or complex Hilbert 4-space (see: Bierens, HJ [2007], Introduction to
Hilbert Spaces, http://econ.la.psu.edu/~hbierens/HILBERT.PDF, pp.1-5, 17).
[9]
See: Peter, P & Uzan, J-P (2009), Primordial Cosmology, Oxford: OUP, p.144.
[10]
See: Tegmark, M (2005-6), General Relativity. MIT Course 8.033, Fall 2005, last revised
November
7
2006,
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-033-relativity-fall2006/readings/gr.pdf, p.2.
[11]
See: Robertson, HP (1933), On E.A. Milnes Theory of World Structure, Z fr
Astrophys 7:153-66, BibCode: 1933ZA......7..153R, http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgibin/nphiarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1933ZA......7..153R&letter=0&classic=YES&default
print=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=153&epage=153&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.pdf,
pp.154-65. (It is, incidentally, quite wrong for Robertson to refer to Milnes observers as
privileged: they are anything but privileged, given their equivalence. Milne merely treats
each observers viewpoint as if it was the centre of the universe; which, from the observers
perspective, it is.)
[12]
Aisthetescentric will probably not have the elegance to thrive as a word.
[13]
Co-extensive with 4, the set of all imaginary or complex numbers extended in 4
coordinate axes or dimensions from some origin point (Cartesian coordinate system), as
opposed to 4, the set of all real numbers extended over four dimensions. This is because we
are including time, but measuring time (ict) using imaginary length.
3

complex Hilbert 3-space[14]. The deceleration parameter, q0, at the present

epoch, is then given by:

(Eq.2)
We find that R = c/H = c = RH, the Hubble radius. Furthermore, the
Schwarzschild radius of the mass of the local universe, ML, is given by:

(Eq.3)[15]
If the above prevails, then our universe constitutes the interior of a large black
hole[16], and the distance RS = RH an event horizon, as defined by Rindler
(1956)[17]:
An event horizon, for a given fundamental observer A, is a (hyper-)
surface in space-time which divides all events into two non-empty
classes: those that have been, are, or will be observable by A, and
those that are forever outside As possible powers of observation. ... A
[14]

See n.8 above. The metric reads: ds2 = (dx2 + dy2 + dz2). The space is a Euclidean
subspace or subset of 3, as well as of 4, and is a subspace of Minkowski space, see Eq.1b.
[15]
Thus ML = c3/2G = constant, given constant values for c, G and , the last also implying
constant H (= -1). If H = 67.4 km s-1 Mpc-1 = 2.184 10-18 s-1 (see: Ade, PAR, et al [2013],
Planck 2013 results. XVI. Cosmological parameters, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1303.5076v2.pdf,
p.12), then ML = 9.2428 1052 kg. If constant, M can still be a constant, provided that
0; = constant (see below) and k = 0, m -2.
[16]
This black holes metric is not the Schwarzschild metric, because that applies to the spacetime in the immediate vicinity of a non-rotating, electrically neutral black hole, rather than
inside it. See: Schwarzschild, K (1916), ber das Gravitationsfeld eines Massenpunktes
nach der Einsteinschen Theorie [On the gravitational field of a mass point according to
Einsteins theory], Sitzungberichte der Kniglich Preussischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften
7:189-96,
BibCode:
1916AbhKP1916..189S,
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nphiarticle_query?1916AbhKP1916..189S&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YE
S&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf; Eng trans by Antoci, S & Loinger, A (1999),
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9905030v1.pdf. The universes actual radius would be given by
Ru = ctu < RH = RS.
[17]
Rindler, W (1956), Visual horizons in world models, Monthly Notices of the Royal
Astronomical
Society
116(6):662-7,
BibCode:
1956MNRAS.116..662R,
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1956MNRAS.116..662R, p.663.
4

particle horizon, for any given fundamental observer A and cosmic

instant t0 is a surface in the instantaneous 3-space t = t0, which divides
all fundamental particles into two non-empty classes: those that have
already been observable by A at time t0 and those that have not
(ibid., my emphases).
We know from the work of Vesto Slipher[18], Georges Lematre[19] and Edwin
Hubble[20] that galaxies beyond the local group of galaxies[21] are receding from
us with a velocity that increases in direct proportion to their distance from us, vr
= Hd. At the Hubble distance, vr c, by definition. In the universe we are
describing, and given that, by the STR, no object with non-zero rest mass may
travel with v c, and a black hole has an escape velocity, vesc > c, then, as
Melia, Melia & Abdelquader and Melia & Shevchuk[22] argue, the surface of the
Hubble sphere (or Hubble volume) constitutes an event horizon as defined by
Rindler (op.cit.), or what they term a cosmic horizon.
[18]

Slipher, VM (1913), The Radial Velocity of the Andromeda Nebula, Lowell

Observatory Bulletin II(8):56-7, http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/slipher_1913.pdf; idem
(1915), Spectrographic Observations of Nebulae, Report of the 17th Meeting of the
American
Astronomical
Society,
Popular
Astronomy
23:21-24,
http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/slipher_1915.pdf; idem (1917), Nebulae, Proceedings of
the
American
Philosophical
Society
56:403-9,
http://www.roe.ac.uk/~jap/slipher/slipher_1917.pdf.
[19]
Lematre, G (1927), Un univers homogne de masse constante et de rayon croissant,
rendant compte de la vitesse radiale de nbuleuses extra-galactiques [A homogeneous
universe of constant mass and increasing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae], Annales de la Socit Scientifique de Bruxelles, Srie A, 47, BibCode:
1927ASSB...47...49L,
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nphiarticle_query?1927ASSB...47...49L&amp;data_type=PDF_HIGH&amp;whole_paper=YES
&amp;type=PRINTER&amp;filetype=.pdf.
[20]
Hubble, EP (1929), A Relation Between Distance and Radial Velocity Among ExtraGalactic Nebulae, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of
America
15(3):168-73,
15th
March
1929,
http://www.pnas.org/content/15/3/168.full.pdf+html.
[21]
This includes, besides the Milky Way Galaxy, its satellite system, the Andromeda Galaxy
and its satellite system, the Triangulum Galaxy, Pisces Dwarf, and some others. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group.
[22]
Melia, F (2007), The cosmic horizon, MNRAS 382(4):1917-21, 16th Nov 2007, DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12499.x,
http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/382/4/1917.full.pdf; idem (2009), Constraints on
Dark Energy from the Observed Expansion of Our Cosmic Horizon, International Journal
of Modern Physics D 18(7):1113, July 2009, DOI: 10.1142/S0218271809014984,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4778.pdf, 15 pp.;
idem & Abdelquader, M (2009), The
Cosmological Spacetime, Int J Mod Phys D 18(12):1889, 30th November 2009, DOI:
10.1142/S0218271809015746, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.5394.pdf, 13 pp.; idem & Shevchuk,
ASH (2012), The Rh = ct universe, MNRAS 419(3):2579-86, Jan 2012, DOI:
10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19066.x, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.5189.pdf.
5

It must be borne in mind that, in this cosmos, space itself is not

expanding: matter and energy are merely occupying more of the space available
as time progresses. Thus the comoving coordinates and distances of the
Friedmann-Lematre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW)[23] metric do not apply.
Distances are measured using the travel times (tltt) of electromagnetic radiation
from objects emitting such radiation = tu tem, where tu is the present age of the
universe and tem is the time the electromagnetic radiation was emitted. For
distant extragalactic objects, the Lematre-Hubble formula yields:
(

(Eqs.4a-c)
At recessional velocities vr c, z vr/c. Thus, z = 0.008 implies a vr
0.008c = 2,398.339664 km s-1 and a light travel time distance of Dltt = ctltt = d
zc = 1.098 1021 km 116 million light years. This is the approximate
distance of galaxies such as the Siamese Twin Galaxies, in the Virgo Cluster
(VCC 1673 and VCC 1676), NGC 4567 and NGC 4568[24]. On the other hand,
if vr = 99.9% c, = 0.999 and z = 43.71, zc would give 43.71 c, so we must use
vr c, and derive the value of from:
[23]

See: Friedmann, A (1922), ber die Krmmung des Raumes [On the Curvature of
Space], Zeitschrift fr Physik 10(1):377-86, BibCode: 1922ZPhy...10..377F; idem (1924),
ber die Mglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Krmmung des Raumes [On the
Possibility of a World with Constant Negative Space Curvature], Z fr Phys 21(1):326-32,
BibCode: 1924ZPhy...21..326F; Lematre, op.cit.; idem (1931), The Beginning of the World
from the Point of View of Quantum Theory, Nature 127(3210):706, 9th May 1931, DOI:
10.1038/127706b0, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v127/n3210/full/127706b0.html;
idem (1933), LUnivers en Expansion [The Expanding Universe], ASSB A 53:51,
BibCode: 1933ASSB...53...51L; Robertson, HP (1933), Relativistic Cosmology, Reviews
of Modern Physics 5(1):62-90, 1st Jan 1933, BibCode: 1933RvMP....5...62R, DOI:
10.1103/RevModPhys.5.62; Walker, AG (1933), Distance in an expanding universe,
MNRAS
94:159-67,
BibCode:
1933MNRAS..94..159W,
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nphiarticle_query?db_key=AST&bibcode=1933MNRAS..94..159W&letter=0&classic=YES&de
faultprint=YES&whole_paper=YES&page=159&epage=159&send=Send+PDF&filetype=.p
df.
[24]
See photograph and information at: http://www.spotastro.com/NGC_4567_Wide.html.
NGC 4567 and NGC 4568 were discovered in March 1784 by William Herschel, see:
http://cseligman.com/text/atlas/ngc45a.htm#4567. According to the SIMBAD database,
NGC 4567s vr = zc = 2,278.4 km s-1, its redshift z = 0.0076, and its maximum distance =
19.96 Mpc = 115.7868 Mly,
http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/simid?Ident=%401961459&Name=NGC++4567&submit=display+all+measurements#lab_meas.
6

)
(Eq.5)

finding that = 0.999. While z can exceed 1, cannot; indeed, as vr < c, < 1.
Thus, the Hubble radius, RH = c, is an absolute limit, which can be approached,
but never reached or crossed. As the Hubble time is ~14.51 Gy[25], RH 14.51
Gly. The current age of the universe is estimated to be 13.813 Gy (see: Ade, et
al, op.cit.). This means that no object in the universe can be older than 13.813
Gy, or more distant than 13.813 Gly. The most distant objects, on the strength
of the argument we have presented, must have recessional velocities of vr =
285,407.46 km s-1, = 0.952 and redshifts, z = 5.377. However, redshifts of z =
1100 have been measured, and z = 90,000,000 is theoretically possible[26]!
Consequently, we are left with no alternative but to accept that the Milne
picture is wrong[27], and that space is expanding, in accordance with the
(modified) FLRW metric (when k = 0, and again using imaginary length for
proper time and time):
(

)(

)
(Eq.6)

where R(tu0), the scale factor, can be set at 1 at the present epoch. The distances
measured by (x, y, z) are then comoving distances as opposed to light travel time
distances[28]. However, what matters is the rate at which space is expanding; if
[25]

1Gy = 1 billion years.

This is the redshift of electromagnetic radiation emitted ~49.293 min after the Big Bang;
see: Wright, EL (2006), A Cosmology Calculator for the World Wide Web, The
Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 118(850):1711-15, BibCode:
2006PASP..118.1711W, DOI: 10.1086/510102,
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html. In practice, we would have difficulty
detecting this, as it originates well before the de-ionisation, or recombination, era, some
300,000 years after the Big Bang (see: Ryden, B [2003], Cosmic Microwave Background,
March 2003, http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~ryden/ast162_9/notes39.html).
[27]
This does not mean, however, that his Principle of Extended Relativity is wrong. The
observable universe is still centred on the locus of each hypothetical observer, and the locus
of the only observers we know of, as opposed to speculate about, is Earth.
[28]
A comoving distance is a cosmological distance that does not change over time due to the
metric expansion of space, in contrast to a proper distance, which does (although the ratio of
the two at the present epoch, with the scale factor equal to 1, is 1). The comoving distance
(both radial or line-of-sight and transverse, if k = 0) of an extragalactic object is given by
[26]

( )

, where DH is the Hubble distance and E(z) is the dimensionless Hubble

7

the 3-space volume of the Hubble sphere is expanding (i.e., if the Hubble
constant is not a genuine constant, but a parameter), then if vr = c:
( )

(Eqs.7a-d)
the only difference being that vr can exceed c, and at the Hubble distance RH
14.51 Gly (theoretical light travel time distance), z = 1.479, comoving radial
distance, DC 14.51 Gly and actual light travel time, tlt = 9.492 Gy[29]. This
local universe (Hubble volume) still has a mass given by ML = 9.2428 1052
kg, but its cosmological constant, 0, a genuine constant, given by

(Eq.8)
where = 0.686 is the current mass density parameter generated by dark
energy or the cosmological constant (see Planck satellite results in Ade, et al,
op.cit., p.12.), meaning that 68.6% of all the mass of the universe is in the form
of dark energy, and 2, the square of the Hubble time. It is this dark
energy that ensures that we can be living inside an enormous black hole, and yet
not have to worry for it is more than sufficient to overcome the gravitational
force that would otherwise eventually crush the universe back into a space-time
singularity[30]. Not only is space expanding: the expansion is accelerating.
(How fast depends on the precise nature of the dark energy and the value of
w[31].) The thesis proposed by Melia and his colleagues (opp.cit.)[32] that the
parameter [m(1 + z)3 + ] (see: Hogg, DW [2000], Distance Measures in
Cosmology, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9905116v4.pdf, pp.1-4).
[29]
See Wright, op.cit.
[30]
In a universe where = 0, if RH < RS, > 1, k = 1, and space-time is closed/Riemannian.
It expands to a maximum extent, then shrinks to zero volume, infinite density.
[31]
If dark energy is some form of quintessence, then, in the case of phantom energy, with
w < 1, the Big Rip scenario prevails, see: Caldwell, RR, Kamionkowski, M & Weinberg,
NN (2003), Phantom Energy: Dark Energy with w < 1 Causes a Cosmic Doomsday,
Physical
Review
Letters
91:071301,
13th
August
2003,
DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevLett.91.071301, http://arxiv.org/pdf/Astro-ph/0302506.pdf; the Little Rip
does if w < 1 now but w 1 asymptotically; the Pseudo-Rip if w constant < 1; and
the Quasi-Rip if w < 1 now and w > 1 much later. See: Frampton, PH, Ludwick, KJ &
Scherrer, RJ (2011), The little rip, Physical Review D 84:063003, 6th Sept 2011, DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.84.063003, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.4996.pdf?origin=publication_detail;
idem (2012), The Pseudo-rip: Cosmological models intermediate between the cosmological
8

surface of the Hubble sphere constitutes an event horizon, as defined by Rindler

(op.cit.), which has been refuted by Van Oirschot, Kwan & Lewis (2010)[33], is
therefore insupportable; it is not even a Rindlerian particle horizon. This
honour is reserved for the surface of the sphere defined by the observable
universes current radius, Robs = 46.156 Gly (tlt = 13.813 Gy = tu, see Wright,
op.cit.34). Beyond that lies an unobservable infinity, containing an infinity of
parallel universes[35], all contained within a quasi-Euclidean 4-space[36].
constant and the little rip, Physical Review D 85:083001, 3rd April 2012, DOI:
10.1103/PhysRevD.85.083001, http://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.2964.pdf?origin=publication_detail;
Brevik, I, Obukhov, VV & Timoshkin, AV (2013), Quasi-Rip and Pseudo-Rip universes
induced by the fluid inhomogeneous equation of state, Astrophysics and Space Science
344(1):275-9,
March
2013,
DOI:
10.1007/s10509-012-1328-7,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.0391v1.pdf, p.275=p.1. A value for w = 1 is consistent with a
heat death scenario for the end of the universe; see: Krauss, LM & Starkman, GD (2000),
Life, the Universe, and Nothing: Life and Death in an Ever-expanding Universe, The
Astrophysical
Journal
531(1),
1st
March
2000,
DOI:
10.1086/308434,
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9902189.pdf?origin=publication_detail (arxiv copy has 22 pp.).
[32]
Melia and his colleagues try to support their argument by urging that w = ; however, as
Ade, et al, op.cit., p.39, point out, the empirical value of w, from various combined sources of
data, including the Planck and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) satellites,
Baryon Acoustic Oscillation (BAO) observations, and so on, is 1.13, which, as the
authors point out, is consistent with the CDM models predicted w = 1.
[33]
Van Oirschot, P, Kwan, J & Lewis, GF (2010), Through the looking glass: why the
cosmic horizon is not a horizon, MNRAS 404(4):1633-8, DOI: 10.1111/j.13652966.2010.16398.x, http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/404/4/1633.full.pdf.
[34]
Using a value of 67.356 km s-1 Mpc-1 for H0, slightly different from that in Ade, et al,
op.cit., p.12.
[35]
The Level I Multiverse; see: Tegmark, M, The Multiverse Hierarchy, in Carr, B, ed
(2007), Universe or Multiverse? Cambridge:CUP, http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.1283v1.pdf,
pp.1-4. Tegmarks use of the term Hubble volume is mistaken; this should only refer to the
volume of space whose radius is given by RH, the Hubble radius. See: Seshavatharam, UVS
& Lakshminarayana, S (2012), Hubble Volume and the Fundamental Interactions,
International
Journal
of
Astronomy
1(5):87-100,
DOI:
10.5923/j.astronomy.201201015.03,
http://article.sapub.org/pdf/10.5923.j.astronomy.20120105.03.pdf, p.88.
[36]
The metric of this quasi-Euclidean space is ds2 = dx12 + dx22 + dx32 + dx42, with x1 = x, x2 =
y, x3 = z and x4 = ict (Minkowski metric). It is reasonable to assume that this space does not
expand, but is already as infinite as it can be, with all (or most) of the universes of the Level I
Multiverse expanding outwards into it. That there are smaller and greater infinities can be
demonstrated from the cardinalities of the sets , with 0 < 1, being
the set of all natural numbers, that of all integers, the set of all rational numbers, and
and as previously defined. 0 (aleph-null) is the cardinality of , , and , which are
countably, or denumerably, infinite. Aleph-one, 1 = = || = |n| = || = |n| > 0 is the
cardinality of and , which are both uncountably infinite. The cardinality of the quasiEuclidean
space
4
is
thus
1
=

=
|4|.
See:
http://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Continuum_hypothesis;
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-0.html; http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Aleph-1.html;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum.
9